And both CK and UM have touched on a very raw point with any psych. therapies — do they actually work, and by how much?

Most of the work of therapists seem to follow from a client concern with what are fairly normal (and necessary) reactions to life’s stumbling blocks. I dubbed this the “California mindset” once — a belief that everyone should be happy at all times. And if you’re not… you need to fix that.

Well, why???

Aren’t joy and grief both an expected part of (non-abusive) relationships? The joy in the companionship will, surely, be some day be followed by grief at death. The giving is equalled by the taking. The laughter mirrored by dispute. The warmth of a gentle caress, the cold-shoulder “I’m not talking about this”.

Psychoanalysis I don’t, frankly, have much respect for. Freud provided a useful framework for thinking of the concepts, but as for what followed… who the heck can spend 3 years on a couch twice a week anyway? (or even want to!).

Most “conditions” self-correct. People absorb and move on. Some need a bit of a guided push.

I do see therapy as very useful in helping someone process what’s going on, particularly if they are stuck in a hole. It can inform, give perspective, prompt. A glass of chilled reisling and the calm advice of an intelligent friend should work just as well.

There are also certain behavioural techniques you can be taught to use, and they can be a very practical way of getting through. (You just need to watch that the behavioural technique is not more controlling that the original complaint!)

For those “conditions” with an organic basis — schizophrenia for example — all the talking in the World will do very little. Drugs do all the heavy lifting (typically, 80-90%).

Apart from that, I’m quite forgiving of people’s little eccentricities. It makes life interesting, and it’s a sheer impossibility for everyone to be “above average” in any case.

(And that reminds me of the shock expressed by Eisenhower when an advisor informed him that “half of all American’s have below average intelligence.” Well, durh — that’s what an average is.)

My feeling is that it’s not all that great. In fact, other forms of psychotherapy have been shown to work better, particularly those of the cognitive or constructivist persuasion. A lot of psychoanalytic theories and explanations come across as abstract, and unveriable (untestable).
What are your thoughts on this?

It seems like a hardcore reparative therapist can almost brain-wash a lesbian patient into thinking her father was bad, in order to fit the pre-fabricated narrative regarding the etiology of lesbianism, when in reality, there was never a problem in the relationship to be begin with.

U.M.

But I only want it in the present moment!!! Live in the now baby!!!

This highlights one of many problem with psychodynamic interpretations in general: the fixation a patient has depends on the analysts view of dynamics. The reparative therapists say its the mother’s fault, other analysts would say its the father’s fault.

My problem with reparative therapy is that the therapist goes into it with a preset view of what the history will be.